[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me that if they wanted to put in limitations for some publishing house, it would not be
unreasonable to put in a policies configuration where you can select, say, the WB or
BH guidelines and styles so the various houses get what they want. For the rest of us
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I wonder if we should be giving them some benefit of the doubt on this
subject. As a professional software designer for 35 years, it seems
entirely plausible to me that they may have faced a point where
preserving unlimited staff names, in combination with other new
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I wonder if we should be giving them some benefit of the doubt on this
subject. As a professional software designer for 35 years, it seems
entirely plausible to me that they may have faced a point where
preserving unlimited staff names, in combination with other new
I didn't say it would be impossible to program F2009 to preserve
unlimited staff lists. Clearly anything like this is possible. The
point is that they very well could have faced a decision where
simplifying the staff lists made their lives considerably easier. This
might be a sensible
John Howell wrote:
At 8:54 AM -0400 8/2/08, dhbailey wrote:
But why is this issue being raised now, when these same major
publishers have been using Finale for many years? Why wasn't the
staff-list limit lowered to 4 many years ago? That's the part that
baffles me -- did these publishers
dhbailey wrote:
I think that MM may simply be using
that as a smokescreen to hide the true reason for the limitation, one
that they don't want to admit to.
What would that reason be, then? I can't think of one. Curious!
___
Finale mailing list
At 12:00 -0500 3/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:11:38 +0200
From: Barbara Touburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
To: finale@shsu.edu
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
dhbailey wrote
Seems to me that if they wanted to put in limitations for some publishing
house, it would not be unreasonable to put in a policies configuration where
you can select, say, the WB or BH guidelines and styles so the various houses
get what they want. For the rest of us peons who have different
I wonder if we should be giving them some benefit of the doubt on this
subject. As a professional software designer for 35 years, it seems
entirely plausible to me that they may have faced a point where
preserving unlimited staff names, in combination with other new
features. would have taken
I am a programmer, too, and for about as long. I have encountered situations
similar to what you've described below. There may be issues with having large
staff lists (performance, field count bit size, whatever), but I can't see the
reason for 4, as opposed to say, 8 or 16. I am not in their
David,
Spot on.
This would preserve backward compatibility and meet the objection of it being
too wild for the publishers.
FWIW, I do not write for a publisher. I write for a private group of people. I
haven't taken a survey, but I would venture a guess that many others do not
either. I
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I appreciate that link -- however I still see no reason
that
a publisher has been crippled by the different numbers of
staff lists submission may have.
Scott addressed this. In essence, having the more solid
Allen Fisher wrote:
So I guess these guys don't count:
http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6m=230216
First couple of guys seem to like it just fine.
Actually, only Wiggy seems happy with it, the others seem
more like they're okay with it but haven't really gotten
into it.
The
At 8:54 AM -0400 8/2/08, dhbailey wrote:
But why is this issue being raised now, when these same major
publishers have been using Finale for many years? Why wasn't the
staff-list limit lowered to 4 many years ago? That's the part that
baffles me -- did these publishers simply wake up and
But does it really matter? Why force the program to just have 4 because
a publisher says so? Is make music going to start enforcing fonts as
well? Are we all going to be stuck using Jazz font or something next?
John Howell wrote:
Ummm, did I miss something in all these identically-named posts,
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NO PUBLISHER HAS ACTUALLY SAID THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM
FOR THEM?!!! I thought someone just brought the possibility up out of thin
air as an apologia for MakeMusic's ...snip...
I've yet to heard any publishers say this for
I received FinMac2k9 a few hours ago and have had a quick look to
ascertain the damage of the crippled Staff Lists. I've got that ole
sinking feeling... I can see that being able to duplicate Categories
could have opened up some exciting new possibilities if it had been
coupled with unlimited
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how the number of staff lists a
person
uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher.
How would it create more work for a publisher?
Scott summarized the issues here:
in answer to my previous post re dodgy Bookmarks sorting. I tried
some alternatives in FinMac2k6d and added about 20 numbers to a new
default file. It appears that by commencing the Bookmark name with
the string '01_', '02_', '03_' etc it sorts correctly from top to
bottom in the list.
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I appreciate that link -- however I still see no reason
that
a publisher has been crippled by the different numbers of
staff lists submission may have.
Scott addressed this. In essence, having the more solid convention for when and
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could
each have a different
staff list would slow those publishers down.
When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front of the bull?
By what
So I guess these guys don't count:
http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6m=230216
First couple of guys seem to like it just fine.
On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Having 50 different expression
And there are a ton of people who don't?
Flag...waving.bull?
Taking away features is generally a bad thing. People who have been using
them don't like it. Plain and simple. A better solution would have been to
say If you want to use the new Markings, you need to limit your staffs to
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Allen Fisher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First couple of guys seem to like it just fine.
On the contrary. They don't object to it. That's hardly the same
thing. Show me one user who prefers it.
___
Finale mailing list
Allen Fisher wrote:
I concur, Wiggy. Thanks. You've pretty much convinced me that F2009 is
worth moving to at this point.
An endoresement of Fin09 is not an endorsement of the 4-SL limit. Heck,
as vocal as I am about this issue, I endorse Fin09 in general. I think
the new expression tool
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front
of the bull?
In case you didn't notice, Robert, I was asked the question specifically. So
don't complain about me answering it or how I answer it.
At 12:27 PM 8/1/2008, Robert Patterson wrote:
On the contrary. They don't object to it. That's hardly the same
thing. Show me one user who prefers it.
I have to agree with Robert's distinction here. In addition, their
lack of objection seems to be based on the fact that these are users
who had
Aaron Sherber wrote:
Personally, I don't really have a dog in this race. I only ever used
staff lists for things like tempo markings and rehearsal marks, and so
the new paradigm works for me just fine.
You actually do have a (smallish) chihuahua in the race. I'm arguing for
*no* limit.
Yes, seeing how they handled this, an for the people who used that
feature, they have little recourse.
I can see them doing something similar at some point with speedy
entry, with similar rationalizations.
On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I
At 02:56 PM 8/1/2008, Robert Patterson wrote:
You actually do have a (smallish) chihuahua in the race. I'm arguing for
*no* limit. Right now you are forced to have 4 even if you only need 1.
This may seem a small thing, but since you can change the names or even
give them meaningful names, how
On 1 Aug 2008 at 8:22, Tyler Turner wrote:
Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could
each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. Having
any staff list at all for dynamics would make them unpredictable when
positioning or deleting, and
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how the number of staff lists a
person
uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher.
How would it create more work for a publisher?
Scott summarized the issues here:
From there we enlisted input from a broad spectrum of Finale
professionals Oh, you mean like people on the Finale
list.or.on the forums orexactly from where where
these broad spectrum of people found again?
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey [EMAIL
Dannewitz [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:15 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
From there we enlisted input from a broad spectrum of Finale
professionals Oh, you mean like people on the Finale
list.or.on the forums orexactly
Scott explains well how the new staff lists give us advantages, but
not how a piece with many staff lists would create more work for a
publisher. I cannot see why this should be so.
I am happy with the new behaviour for my own work, since I have
always entered dynamics and the like as
to reveal names.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:15 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
From there we enlisted input from a broad
Allen,
Thank you for offering to speak with someone at MakeMusic
about getting an official presence here. I am sad that it
probably won't be you, as you appear to have a terrific
grasp of the program as well as a personality which appears
to be able to explain things in a calm and clear
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
If they are right, why wouldn't the problem take care of itself? Why
cripple the old way in order to force people to use the new way?
That's a very good question, and one which I think the
answer to involves more complexity than simple arbitrary
restriction
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:42 AM, dhbailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think
there may be a programming issue where underlying changes in the way the
program works might have made internal tracking or control of more than 4
staff lists difficult.
I do not know any more about how this function
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absent a true programming need, there is no logical reason
for such a limitation because any such change in the number
of staff lists would have involved programming time which
would better have been spent elsewhere.
I don't
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the reason it's not in there is related to publishers complaining
about receiving user files that had terribly indiscriminate use of
staff lists which translated into more work for them.
Given the new paradigm
So big business is now dictating feature reductions? Stupid.
There should have been a compromise or something. If you have more than 4
staff lists only the first 4 can support the new measure expressions. After
that, it would be like previous versions. Something like that would have
been a better
I believe it was mentioned here that the limit on staff lists is not present
in the repeat tool. To this non-programmer, that seems to be the most
curious thing in all of this.
In 2006 (my current version), as far as I can tell, the repeat tool accesses
the same group of staff lists that are
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absent a true programming need, there is no logical
reason for such a limitation because any such change in
the number
of staff lists would have involved programming time
which would better have been spent elsewhere.
On 30.07.2008 Tyler Turner wrote:
I think the reason it's not in there is related to publishers complaining about
receiving user files that had terribly indiscriminate use of staff lists which
translated into more work for them.
No, that surely is not the reason.
Johannes
--
On 28.07.2008 Fisher, Allen wrote:
That said, since I've distracted everyone from discussing Finale by
accidentally including my signature and taking a vacation day, I think it's
best that I shut up for a while.
Well, you see that is partly why people criticize you, I believe: as
soon as
On 28.07.2008 Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Still think you should strongly suggest to your employer that you be allowed
to answer questions on this list (and perhaps others) in an official manner.
Why not spend 30 minutes or so fielding questions (or someone fielding
questions) rather than this we are
Tyler Turner wrote:
Flexibility only works in Finale's favor if the implementation always makes
it clear what the BEST method is in a given situation.
It just sickens me to see one MM employee or ex-employee after another
try to justify what is plainly a bull-headed, arbitrary, and
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What augers worst for me in this attitude is the clear
Sibeliusation
trend. Sibelius always took knocks because it wasn't as
flexible as
Finale. When the Finn brothers were in charge Sib was
willfully
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It just sickens me to see one MM employee or ex-employee
after another
try to justify what is plainly a bull-headed, arbitrary,
and
user-underestimating decision. I have yet to see a single
actual, you
know, *user* argue
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that many people were using staff lists for situations where
drag-apply really is much smarter.
No argument with that here. What I'm saying is MM wants to force
people to use drag-apply when staff lists are
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look on MakeMusic's forum.
I looked. What I saw is a lot of people learning to live with an
arbitrary limitation. I also saw a lot of posters who apparently don't
need section-level staff lists, which is what the outrage
Yes, yes, yes. This is absolutely true. Tyler, I'm glad you were able
to articulate this fundamental issue so clearly. That summarizes 10
years of frustration for me.
I have worked in the software business for 30+ years and pretty open to
learning curve issues. I feel like I have been
Of Johannes Gebauer
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:16 AM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
On 28.07.2008 Fisher, Allen wrote:
That said, since I've distracted everyone from discussing Finale by
accidentally including my signature and taking a vacation day, I think it's
On 29 Jul 2008 at 7:03, Tyler Turner wrote:
The problem is that many people were using staff
lists for situations where drag-apply really is much smarter.
Then there is likely a user interface flaw that is encouraging them
in that direction.
This sounds like one of those blaming the users
At 04:27 PM 7/29/2008, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jul 2008 at 7:03, Tyler Turner wrote:
The problem is that many people were using staff
lists for situations where drag-apply really is much smarter.
Then there is likely a user interface flaw that is encouraging them
in that direction.
This
The irony is that MM has largely fixed the problem in the right way.
They just gilded the lily by adding an arbitrary limit.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, David W. Fenton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds like one of those blaming the users situations, where
natural user actions lead to
On 29 Jul 2008 at 16:43, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 04:27 PM 7/29/2008, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jul 2008 at 7:03, Tyler Turner wrote:
The problem is that many people were using staff
lists for situations where drag-apply really is much smarter.
Then there is likely a user
I guess I've changed my mind again.
FinMac 2K2 was an almost perfect program. All subsequent versions have
been distinctly inferior, and MakeMusic seems to have made almost no
effort to restore the smooth, seamless operation of its last pre-OSX
version, but has rather introduced new features
I agree Fin2k2 was good, but many of the subsequent enhancements are
one I could not live without (esp. auto-positioning of expressions
and, yes, linked parts.)
I think those who denigrate linked parts are missing the point. Of
course linked parts is only partially implemented, but the question
: Friday, July 25, 2008 09:22 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
At 12:00 -0500 25/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:45:53 -0500
From: Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
If you made extensive
And remember, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 09:55 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Andrew:
This isn't meant to counter your position... But you can extract parts
in 2K9. I work with linked parts until I get them close, then extract
and tweak. I rather like the option because occasionally I get a part
that works as linked and I can just print it without extra tweaking.
-Carolyn
: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Strangely, Mr. Fisher who was quick to jump on the Speedy Entry was
dropped rumor is no where to be found.
I don't get why would do that
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Claudio Pompili
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:00 -0500 25/7/08, [EMAIL
, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 09:55 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Strangely, Mr
Thanks Tyler,
That is the solution, even if, for me, it isn't as convenient as
having more staff lists available. But at least it does work.
Bernard
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I don't think that would be the fastest way. I would think
you'd do this - from
At 12:38 PM 7/28/2008, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
Oh, come on now. This point has been
On 28.07.2008 Fisher, Allen wrote:
And remember, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
I and many others know that. It is nice that you are here, it would be
even nicer if MM did actually send an official representative to monitor
the list. But it is not your fault that they don't
.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Eric
Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 09:55 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Strangely, Mr. Fisher who was quick to jump on the Speedy Entry was
dropped rumor is no where
@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Strangely, Mr. Fisher who was quick to jump on the Speedy Entry was
dropped rumor is no where to be found.
I don't get why would do that
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Claudio Pompili
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:00 -0500
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
Fisher, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
And remember, I
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it is like a game or something. They
are here, but they aren't Officially on the list. Stupid. If you are going
to put your MakeMusic company thing at the end of your emails then you
should be on here officially.
Again, I think if we could get MakeMusic and
On 28.07.2008 Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it is like a game or something. They
are here, but they aren't Officially on the list. Stupid. If you are going
to put your MakeMusic company thing at the end of your emails then you
should be on here officially.
I have
Fisher, Allen wrote:
And remember, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
And while I think less of MM for not officially endorsing
it, I think very highly of you as a person and as a MM
employee who is willing to enter the fray to help both the
user and the company come to some sort
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
The other company DOES have someone do that -- Daniel
Yes, I know that Daniel does an excellent job on and off the Sibelius list.
I think that MakeMusic not bothering to have an official person on a list is
something that should be addressed. If not this list, a yahoogroup one or
something.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM, dhbailey
[EMAIL
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
[snip]
How hard would it be to have someone field the questions in an
official manner? I'm sure that no one expects the kind of question
answering that Daniel does on Sibelius's behalf, but some sort of
effort would be nice.
As much as I would love to have a reliable
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Randolph Peters wrote:
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That
would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
So why not have one of the tech support people actually do this? They could
also use discussions as a basis of a wiki or knowledge base. Plus, the
perceived good PR couldn't hurt.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Randolph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
As much as I would love to have a
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
It seems funny that the man puts his MakeMusic info at the bottom and is
not here officially. Why not just have an official presence here and
handle the questions and complaints?
Heck, seeing Daniel on the Sibelius list, I think
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Eric Dannewitz
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:28 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
It seems funny that the man puts his MakeMusic info at the bottom and is
not here
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dhbailey
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:29 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Robert also forgot to mention that you can now drag-apply expressions.
While this caused me to change my workflow, it also mitigated
my need for most staff lists.
Actually, I believe I did mention it. I just didn't make a big deal
about it. MM seems to think this can
Thanks Tyler for the suggestion of using the new 'drag expressions'
to deal with the crippling of Staff Lists in 2k9. It's not going to
be anywhere near as convenient and efficient. I'm in the same boat as
Bernard Savoie and others who have made extensive use of SLs and I'll
probably have to
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Claudio Pompili
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:05 -0500 28/7/08, MakeMusic Customer Support wrote:
The decision to limit Finale 2009 to 4 staff groups was done after much
testing and work with clinicians. We will be limiting Finale 2009 to 4
groups at this
At 08:36 PM 7/28/2008, Claudio Pompili wrote:
What I find sad about this is the mindset/culture at MM, yet again.
Testing with clinicians is fine but when contemplating scaling back a
feature such as SLs that have been around for a while, wouldn't it
have made sense to run it past a bigger group
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What augers worst for me in this attitude is the clear
Sibeliusation
trend. Sibelius always took knocks because it wasn't as
flexible as
Finale. When the Finn brothers were in charge Sib was
willfully
inflexible. Now MM
Hi Tyler,
100% agreed.
Feature bloat has long been a problem in Finale. Most of their
streamlining choices over the years have been good ones (merging Note
Expressions and Staff Expressions into a single Expression tool,
replacing the Mass Mover tool with the Mass Edit tool, then merging
This limited staff list is a real bummer for me. I just finished a
contemporary score for full orchestra where the composer had a lot of
performance explanations, often several lines long) for individual
instrument groups. To show these indications on all the relevant
staves in a score is
At 10:43 AM 7/27/2008, Bernard Savoie wrote:
This limited staff list is a real bummer for me. I just finished a
contemporary score for full orchestra where the composer had a lot of
performance explanations, often several lines long) for individual
instrument groups. To show these indications on
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Bernard Savoie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if I need to indicate an explanation for, say all the
clarinets (4
in this case), I use a staff list to define a view on the
1st
clarinet in the score and on each individual parts.
Now repeat the same scenario with all
this is regarding Fin2k9's limit of 4 Staff Lists
At 12:00 -0500 26/7/08, Robert Patterson wrote:
Claudio Pompili wrote:
I don't understand MM's logic in placing such an arbitrary
limit on the SL function.
snip
that said, in the Fin09 world it is difficult for me to see how
you
On 26.07.2008 Matthew Hindson fastmail acct wrote:
The worst thing seems to be that I will have to upgrade to Finale 09 to fix the
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] non-WYSIWYG slurs, but lose features in the process.
I've just about had it with Finale. If only Sibelius had a means by which one
could
On 26.07.2008 Robert Patterson wrote:
Why would you want to do that? was ever the mantra of the foolish 2nd-guesser.
Wasn't that the Sibelius philosophy some time ago? Now they have swapped
over?
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
Robert Patterson wrote:
As near as I can tell, there is no artificial limit in the data
structures. I have not tried it, but I know how (datawise) to make a
plugin add more. (That doesn't mean a plugin should do it, of course.
The resulting file would be completely unsupported.)
Why the
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 26.07.2008 Robert Patterson wrote:
Why would you want to do that? was ever the mantra of the foolish
2nd-guesser.
Wasn't that the Sibelius philosophy some time ago? Now they have swapped
over?
Johannes
It appears that is the case. Sibelius started with that
Robert is certainly spot-on in his comments, and please allow me to add a few
points from the playback and miscellaneous areas.
*Finalescript 2.0 is better than ever. If you are not an FS user, you ought to
be, since it can automate a large number of nuisance repetitive activities.
Older
On 25.07.2008 Robert Patterson wrote:
This seems really plausible until you start thinking about layers, grace notes,
v1/v2, and even tuplets of 0-length. All of these mean that an unlimited number
of notes can coincide at the same beat location.
Can you tell us the consequences?
Personally
At 09:51 AM 7/25/2008, Robert Patterson wrote:
Here is the next really good thing. Expressions can now be placed in
categories, and every expression in that category can have the same
settings.
I'd like to clarify these points in Robert's excellent post.
Expressions now *must* belong to a
On 25.07.2008 Williams, Jim wrote:
WHAT DO I MISS??? That's easy...ABILITY TO RUN PLUGINS ON LINKED PARTS!!
Ah, that brings up a question: Does collision remover work on parts now?
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
